This is Vulpine's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Vulpine's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Vulpine
Recent Activity
@Jeff s "Do you still like your Colorado?" Well, I'm not putting a ton of mileage on it but I do enjoy driving it Any time my wife and I go out of town I recommend driving it so we have a place to carry things (We have a bad habit of packing whatever we're driving while we're out.) It rides nicely and the cruise is surprisingly stable--even to the point of telling the transmission to downshift on long, downhill grades, to try and control the speed. That's something I'm not used to with any previous car and something the Jeep Renegade has only demonstrated for me once in 2.5 years of driving it. So yes, I still like the truck but I still feel it's bigger than I needed, even though I do plan to tow a travel trailer with it.
"Why do you think city buses are shaped like a box of crackers?" --- To carry the most amount of people in the lease amount of space. At 20-30mph with stops every block or two, aerodynamics don't even play into the equation. Weight, however, does. "Look at the high speed trains---aero is a big deal at those speeds. Same objective (mass transit), but different speeds." --- Not exactly true. High-speed trains are built for comfort over longer distances (inter-city distances as compared to intra-city distances.) So they aren't facing the same objective at all. I ride a train from Lorton, VA to Sanford, FL, outside of Orlando. I've done so the last two years running and that train runs at just under 70mph at speed. It's also pulled by a fairly conventional diesel locomotive and is therefore reasonably slab-nosed. The high-speed train such as the Acela Express is built to run 150mph or faster and draws its power from an overhead electric line. There's quite a difference. However, before you say this proves your point, I would remind you of the old Pennsylvania GG1 locomotive that used to pull the later Amtrak trains under the wires. It was a much more streamlined locomotive and pulled those trains (between the multiple railroads and consolidations over the years) for roughly 40 years. The only reason they replaced them with newer was that the old GG1 was wearing out and 'modern' design was more the box cab before they realized that aerodynamics were truly important for economy. Modern diesel passenger locomotives have front ends that look more like a modern motorhome than a locomotive. Yes, aerodynamics do count and I can guarantee that more vehicles, including trucks, will be taking a more slant-nosed, almost cab-over look compared to what we have today. Even if they're only run at 35mph. I mean, just look at what has happened to the old Econoline van... It's now called the Transit and is almost big enough to carry the old Econoline inside.
"does anybody notice how few buyers ran out and picked up a Ridgeline when they offered their bi-directional tailgate? No??? You'd be right. Not many." ---- Posted by: papajim --- How would you know? It looks the same as the conventional tailgate.
"All of that Aero discussion's irrelevant at low-speed (or no speed) situations. My truck spends more time at low speed (and no speed) conditions, so for me whether engineers can make it more efficient at 85mph is much less important than having a truck that will live to see 200k miles click over on the odometer." ---- Posted by: papajim --- Apparently my situation is the exact opposite, only in heavy traffic is my speed below 45mph unless the posted speed limit is below 40mph. I still think it's interesting that my big mid-sized Chevy with V6 is getting the same kind of fuel mileage my little Ranger was getting... but that's beside the point. Probably the best way to relate aerodynamic drag would be to stick your hand out the window while you drive. Put your palm into the wind and see how long you can keep it out there as you accelerate to your typical driving speed. Then, lay your hand flat--edge on to the wind--and do it again... feel for yourself how much the load on your hand changes. Finally, form a fist and do it again. Quite literally, changing the shape changes how much pressure you feel on your hand. Now, think again about the shape of the nose of your truck and its size.... and try to visualize just how much air is being displaced. Oh, and on that old Ranger of mine; I know something wasn't right and the only thing I could conclude is that the mass-air sensor may have been either defective or somehow the airflow into and around it was obstructed. As I said before, even on hot days as long as the engine started out at air temperature, what the temp gauge would call 'cold', it ran well. But once the block was heated up, it took far longer for it to cool back down to 'cold' and the MAS simply couldn't compensate. The guy I sold it to uses it as his daily commuter, so it tends to sit for 8-10 hours between trips. He's never noticed the issue and when considering he almost never uses first gear to accelerate, any loss of power seems to be ignored. He was ecstatic to get a practically-new 21-year-old Ranger and he's an obvious Ranger fan as he owns two other Rangers, one a 4x4 and the other a V6, both with high mileage.
"My 95 Ranger 4cylinder had factory AC and memory says it had an electric fan, not a traditional fan running off the water pump pulley. Did your 97 have factory AC?" --- Yes. In fact, that factory AC is downright cold. Give it about 15 minutes even under those 90°+ conditions and it could drive you right out of that cab. However, maybe due to the fact that the truck sat garaged for most of its life, the clutch wouldn't release at idle. I installed a manual cut-off switch so that I could disengage the AC when accelerating away from a light or stop sign. "I'm still convinced your truck had an issue if it was squishy when hot. Mine ran great and I live in the tropics." ---- Posted by: papajim --- The problem has to do with the mass air sensor. I did some research and the sensor has a fine wire to detect air temperature in what is to me an screwy manner; when you turn on the ignition, it heats that wire to a certain temperature (measured resistively). If that temperature is not 100° above its starting temperature, it retards the timing, though I forget exactly the purpose for doing so outside of either emissions or economy (I think emissions.) When I first started the engine on a hot day, performance would be "normal." But, let's say I drove 20 miles, park for about an hour, then get back in to drive back home. Because the engine is still hot from the first drive, the return drive was at reduced power, which is why I replaced the mechanical fan with an electric. Unfortunately, the engine temperature was still too warm to have any notable affect on performance after swapping out that fan. The one thing it did do, however, is reduce physical load on the engine by a small amount. I wasn't willing to spend the bucks for a complete rebuild on an engine barely over 20K miles at the time.
"2019 Chevy Silverado versus Winter: Investigating a Cold Start Issue in the New Silverado (Video) https://www.tfltruck.com/2019/02/2019-chevy-silverado-winter-cold-start-video/ It’s so ugly, the gremlins don’t know what to do." ---- Posted by: TNTGMC That one's so obvious that I can only assume (I know) they've developed tunnel vision. It's cold solder joints on the BCM computer. The wave soldering technique is remarkably fast and under 'normal' temperature variations can be quite reliable. However, an outdoor vehicle has to suffer extremes of temperatures that typical wave-soldered circuit boards don't experience. That this issue is showing up so quickly demonstrates a bad batch of boards suffering numerous so-called 'cold solder joints', of which the best repair is to pull the boards and re-heat (and add solder) to the connections on that board. It's amazing how intermittent problems like that can be solved by just a tiny bit of added solder.
"We keep having to review this---aerodynamics Aero is a small part of the discussion because aero is irrelevant at speeds under about 50mph. Idling at a traffic light, for example. Pulling away from a dead stop is where light vehicle weight is so important. Aero is a waste of time, unless you spend all your time on the Interstate 75 or 80pmh." ---- Posted by: papajim False statement, pj; Aero starts to take noticeable effect at about 35mph and ramps up logarithmically from there. Essentially, wind resistance doubles with every 10mph to the point that aerodynamics makes a very noticeable difference between 55, 65 and 75mph on your fuel mileage. But worse, it's not just the coefficient of drag you have to concern yourself about, it's also the frontal area, because that CoD is multiplied by the frontal area of the vehicle to calculate total aerodynamic drag. The bigger the face of the vehicle, the more air it has to push aside.
"Regarding your 97 Ranger, I had a 94 Ranger XLT reg cab/short bed and it was very sporty with its 5-speed manual and responsive steering. Yours may have needed some tuning. Mine was quick, (and not modified) and lived past the 250,000 mile mark long after the body was shot (accident damage)." ---- Posted by: papajim Which engine, PJ? How many horses? Mine had the 2.3L dual-ignition at 112 horses and while it was fun to drive, I had to wind it up TIGHT to get any acceleration. And when outside temperatures rose above 90°F, it lost half that horsepower once warmed up. Cold engine it was ok, hot engine, forget it. She would have been much better with the V6 under the hood. And that was AFTER tuning and replacing the mechanical fan with an electric one.
I can't help but wonder why hasn't one of the the big 3 auto manufacturers, (Toyota, VW group and GM) not brought camless engine technology to production. -- The only way to go cam-less is to either go turbine or electric; no other ICE completely eliminates cam action one way or another. Since turbine has its own issues with a hot exhaust and no effective way to scrub that exhaust within the size and length of a car's underbody, they would emit more pollutants by far than going electric. And electric has the advantage of MASSIVE available torque, depending on the size of the motor(s) used.
There are certainly things to like about this new Chevy; fuel economy is not one of them. Really, 17.2mpg on the highway? What were you doing, running 75mph or faster? Or were you towing a few thousand pounds on a flatbed trailer behind it? Then again, that slab-nosed look certainly doesn't help aerodynamics, despite the so-called 'air guides' trying to direct air around the wheel wells. Too tall, too wide and certainly too heavy. On the other hand, you've got to admit the interior is reasonably comfortable. And at $45K, a strong competitor to Chevy's mid-sized Colorado--IF you need the larger size for the money. Me? I'm happier with the 7mpg advantage in fuel economy on the highway.
It seems Toyota has gone lightweight on one of the truck's heaviest components, the engine. Reading this article and discovering the engine itself is almost pure aluminum with a stainless-steel exhaust system means a good 40%-50% weight loss in the engine and bringing it towards a more road-worthy 40/60 weight balance when unloaded. Of course, this means that the shift will go rearward when loaded and a load-leveling hitch is almost mandatory when towing. I do agree with Papajim about one thing, though; when I press on the gas pedal, I want to feel the truck can get out of its own way. Reducing power under light loads is good for cruising, but in today's driving environment, when you accelerate away from a stop sign or light, you need to step out; a laggy acceleration can get the driver into a lot of trouble and cause impatient drivers behind them to make aggressive maneuvers which could result in crashes. Such slow acceleration is why I sold my '97 Ranger and bought something much, much newer with a stronger engine under the hood.
"Little truck, big safety." ---- Posted by: GMSRGREAT It's bigger than it looks, even if it's not full-sized.
"Looks like papadim has finally went off the deep end. Going by his posts content and repeating posts he has likely had a light stroke. Somebody probably needs to check on him. He likely lives in a central Florida trailer park in a small park model RV." ---- Posted by: Just the truth Personally, I have to disagree with you. I've found that if you accidentally double- or triple-click the 'Post' button before the screen refreshes, the site will accept every click and post the comment for each one. That's a fault of the site software and not the poster.
"masking tape, primer, Dupli-color spray (3 grades of abrasive paper--optional)" ----Posted by: papajim --- or a good skin shop that knows how to remove vinyl stickers.
"I have still not seen one of these on the roads. I drive down highway everyday. A have seen 2 more Trailboss Silverado's and about 8 new Ram's. Still no Rangers in site." ---- Posted by: TNTGMC --- Haven't seen any in my neck of the woods either, and I go right by a Ford dealership every day.
"Shame a stick isn't available. Caught it early. No deaths no injuries, no damage. As long as its one time in and out and fixed good to go. If only all recalls were such..." ---- Posted by: Clint --- Based on the description of the test, I'm betting this one will have a repeat recall for all those they didn't actively fix. Sounds to me like the wiring harness could easily slip over time and cause those un-repaired units to develop the problem, after which it could cause the very kind of accident they're trying to prevent. Much better to go 'eyes on' than just testing to see if it happens now.
"I don't like to click URLs but here's a link today that talks about a new wrinkle Ford has just (applied to a patent) invented. Enjoy" ---- Posted by: papajim An interesting concept to be sure, but it looks to me more like unnecessary complexity on something that should be pretty simple. By attaching the electric motors to the engine block, you force some intriguing axle specs to the front axles and mess up some of the front end dynamics. The advantage is obviously that you can keep the engine low but now you add potential torque issues to the block which could cause premature engine failure through stress cracking. Guess we'll just have to wait and see how well this works out in the long run.
"The tiny pickup market could get crowed quickly with the Courier (or whatever they'll call it), the Hyundai Santa Cruz and Subaru bringing they're brat-like vehicle back. Maybe Chevy will bring an El Camino based on the new Trailblazer..." ---- Posted by: average Joe --- Crowded, maybe But I have a feeling that they're also going to eat heavily into the CUV market and maybe even help re-build the sedan market and more conventionally-styled wagons again. I know far too many people who currently own 'lift back' vehicles who would prefer an open bed to carry the dirty, stinky stuff that 'perfumes' their CUVs interiors for so long due to dirty carpets catching every aroma that happens to get laid on them. Sometimes you really do want outside carriage rather than inside. And even if you put a bed cap on it, the aroma is still outside, not in. Plus you have the advantage of carrying loads that simply will not fit inside an enclosed cabin.
"GM's strategy is to place two truck sizes in each of two brands, so that they compete against each other!" --- Dale --- Actually, it is good strategy. One brand can carry the 'luxury truck' banner while the other carries the 'working truck' banner. They both get sales and while they may compete against each other in some ways, their total adds up to competitive with Ford et al. You can't really argue with the effectiveness of the strategy, since it has been working for them for more than 60 years. Funny thing is that when Ford attempted it, it failed miserably--the luxury brand simply didn't sell.
It's funny how after arguing with me for almost 6 years, you guys finally agree with me that the current round of mid-sized trucks are simply TOO big!
I guess you all just like to try and fake each other out in your flame wars. Hey, it may be fun for you but I'd rather hear more discussion about the topic of the article, not whether you're fake or not.
Only 1mpg improvement? Pitiful. Reshape it nose to tail. Make it lower in stance and lower the roof. Narrow the body by AT LEAST six inches. Make it more streamlined... get rid of that slab-nosed look and taper it down to a smooth curve. All of these combine should improve economy by no less than 10% (more likely 20%) without having to stick an undersized, under-performing engine under the hood.
Second-best-looking mid-sizer on the market. Now if it were only as good under the hood. I don't trust a 2.3L turbo to hold up under a steady 7000# toad for many long runs; especially if any of those runs are on mountain highways.
Such tiny wheels under such a big truck. You know the truck is big because of the way it towers over the two guys assembling it in that photo. This is a sign that the trucks have truly grown too large for their purpose. There is no reason what-so-ever that they have to be that large, even for the capacities of hauling and towing that they claim.
"What about LNG? Go to the web and check out the OTR haulers running natural gas for regional deliveries. Saddle Creek Logistics for example." ---- Posted by: papajim --- lower specific power from CNG, usually seen as a significantly reduced fuel mileage in those vehicles (granted at a lower "price per gallon".) Great for local work but problematical for regional or long-distance work.